The general context I wanted to present with this list, although many will probably question it on several points, is that Aid, even with all its benefits, still falls by default into an opportunity cost where it is only used when the character no longer has something better to use. Penalizing it even more will only penalize these characters even more.That's not true.
If I take a very simple example: A Wizard who happens to carry a bow and uses their third action to Aid their Greatsword Barbarian player first attack. On paper, it's not the most impressive use of Aid one can think of, it's still as good as the same Wizard with maxed out Dexterity and a fully Runed Bow (including Elemental Runes) making an attack but with no character investment but level.
If this Wizard starts giving a +3, or even better a +4, because the GM is nice it becomes the de facto third action as it now competes with a martial second attack.At high level, Aid has the potential to really disrupt the game strategy by becoming the single best third action with no competition. All of that at absolutely no character cost.
So I highly disagree when people say it's not disruptive. All it takes is a permissive GM and a bunch of optimizers to turn it into a real high level issue.
Now the fact that it can only be a problem at high level really hides the issue.
But to me the solution to this problem is to adjust the DC of Aid. As I proposed earlier, aiding an attack should be a minimum DC of 15, but otherwise enemy AC - 10. This means you don't necessarily need to have a great chance to hit the enemy, but it means you're not going to auto succeed on your Aid attempts, and you're certainly not going to be consistently critically succeeding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The general context I wanted to present with this list, although many will probably question it on several points, is that Aid, even with all its benefits, still falls by default into an opportunity cost where it is only used when the character no longer has something better to use. Penalizing it even more will only penalize these characters even more.That's not true.
If I take a very simple example: A Wizard who happens to carry a bow and uses their third action to Aid their Greatsword Barbarian player first attack. On paper, it's not the most impressive use of Aid one can think of, it's still as good as the same Wizard with maxed out Dexterity and a fully Runed Bow (including Elemental Runes) making an attack but with no character investment but level.
If this Wizard starts giving a +3, or even better a +4, because the GM is nice it becomes the de facto third action as it now competes with a martial second attack.At high level, Aid has the potential to really disrupt the game strategy by becoming the single best third action with no competition. All of that at absolutely no character cost.
So I highly disagree when people say it's not disruptive. All it takes is a permissive GM and a bunch of optimizers to turn it into a real high level issue.
Now the fact that it can only be a problem at high level really hides the issue.
This example isn't good once that this wizard doesn't get master nor legendary to provide a bonus grater than +2. To give +3 or +4 with a skill (the only thing that a wizard can do to give an Aid with master/legendary proficiency) the GM needs to agree that such skill will do a significant Aid effect and every new check will be increase by the new Repetition entry.
So a wizard using a weapon to Aid honestly, it doesn't impress me, I'd rather roll a floating flame back and forth.
A wizard using arcana to point a weakness in the enemy dragon movement to an ally to try to exploit it using Aid maybe. Yet I still need that this wizard already have RK the target (what already costs an action with failure chance) and has a good justification to be able to do this as a reaction (just say "now" isn't enough the wizard needs to DO something relevant during the reaction if not I don't allow to Aid).
Aids are already hard to use due the need of a good justification. I don't think that we need to stack more and more restrictions over it.
But to me the solution to this problem is to adjust the DC of Aid. As I proposed earlier, aiding an attack should be a minimum DC of 15, but otherwise enemy AC - 10. This means you don't necessarily need to have a great chance to hit the enemy, but it means you're not going to auto succeed on your Aid attempts, and you're certainly not going to be consistently critically succeeding.Depending on what the method of aid is I typically have it be an enemy DC, Maybe adjusted up or down depending on situation. I feel like being able to use any DC-10 results in auto-crit for assurance more often than not.
I'm not suggesting you do DC-10 for everything. Specifically I think DC-10 works for Aid when trying to help an ally against enemy, and the DC in this case is enemy AC (minimum DC 15). So in this scenario, assurance doesn't even apply, and if you're fighting an adult red dragon the target DC to meet with Aid is 27 (Dragon AC is 37). I feel it's appropriate that if they do actually manage to hit a 37 on their aid check it would have meant they could have hit themselves, so to me at that point it is worth allowing them to give up to a +4. Though a caster, who isn't a master or legendary with weapons, is only going to give a +2.
But if you more broadly apply the DC-10 rule...
Looking at the Level Based Basic DC chart for a level 15 challenge, the DC for a generic level appropriate challenge would be 34. So with my proposed rule, the Aid DC would be 24. With assurance in the appropriate skill, and lets even assume you're legendary in the skill...with Assurance you would get a result of 18 (10+8), which would result in a failure to Aid on level tasks.
So, I think broadly applying the DC for Aid to be DC (of the original task) - 10 would stop critical successes from being common.
Edit: I think maybe you misunderstand which DC I was referencing when I said DC - 10, I was referencing the original DC of doing the task yourself.
Aid is pretty much an Ad-hoc bonus that unlike most other actions become more impactful as proficiency goes up. And much like ad-hoc bonuses it risks falling into the same traps which GMCore warns about.
I think it's why some people, myself included, are defensive when it comes to Aid. I'm not usually a GM who "blocks" players. But being too nice with Aid can backfire. It's an aspect of the game that is extremely important outside combat but that I'd prefer to keep in check during combat.
Aid is pretty much an Ad-hoc bonus that unlike most other actions become more impactful as proficiency goes up. And much like ad-hoc bonuses it risks falling into the same traps which GMCore warns about.I think it's why some people, myself included, are defensive when it comes to Aid. I'm not usually a GM who "blocks" players. But being too nice with Aid can backfire. It's an aspect of the game that is extremely important outside combat but that I'd prefer to keep in check during combat.
Honestly, outside of combat I employ the idea that if one person in the party can do "The Thing", they will find a way to allow the party to bypass "The Thing" so that actually rolling for Aid isn't needed (because I'm not going to make the rest of the party roll).
Remember, we're not supposed to roll for things that don't have consequences/time pressure. If the party needs to climb a wall, but you have someone with a climb speed, and you're not in combat, don't bother rolling. The person with a climb speed, climbs up, secures a rope, and using simple climbing techniques everyone makes it to the top. We can narratively say that Aid was applied, but I'm not actually taking the time to roll stuff.
Also, remember outside of combat you can (and probably should) apply Follow the Expert from Exploration rules, which is basically Aid but for exploration rules.
Honestly, outside of combat I employ the idea that if one person in the party can do "The Thing", they will find a way to allow the party to bypass "The Thing" so that actually rolling for Aid isn't needed (because I'm not going to make the rest of the party roll).
The goal is to Aid the character who does "The Thing". Like if you have the Bard making Diplomacy with the king, the Champion can Aid for a +2 (which is not an incredible bonus but at least the Champion doesn't feel bad about having increased Diplomacy alongside the maxed out Bard).
Honestly, outside of combat I employ the idea that if one person in the party can do "The Thing", they will find a way to allow the party to bypass "The Thing" so that actually rolling for Aid isn't needed (because I'm not going to make the rest of the party roll).The goal is to Aid the character who does "The Thing". Like if you have the Bard making Diplomacy with the king, the Champion can Aid for a +2 (which is not an incredible bonus but at least the Champion doesn't feel bad about having increased Diplomacy alongside the maxed out Bard).
Yeah.....we're in agreement.
I guess my point with previous statement was more to say that in a scenario (especially outside of combat) with low/no stakes, like climbing a simple wall, you don't need to bother with Aid and could even use Follow the Expert in many cases.
However, to me "combat" doesn't literally mean fights only. Combat is basically anytime where there are significant consequences for success/failure. Presumably negotiations with a king have significant consequences, so even it it's not swinging a sword it's still "combat", remember the ol' social combat from PF1? A series of checks, not always all diplomacy (you can butter up your "target" by talking to them about their interests).
I guess what I was trying to say is, don't feel like you need to make players roll (including to Aid) for things that don't have a significant impact on the narrative.
I'm not suggesting you do DC-10 for everything. Specifically I think DC-10 works for Aid when trying to help an ally against enemy, and the DC in this case is enemy AC (minimum DC 15). So in this scenario, assurance doesn't even apply, and if you're fighting an adult red dragon the target DC to meet with Aid is 27 (Dragon AC is 37). I feel it's appropriate that if they do actually manage to hit a 37 on their aid check it would have meant they could have hit themselves, so to me at that point it is worth allowing them to give up to a +4. Though a caster, who isn't a master or legendary with weapons, is only going to give a +2.
But if you more broadly apply the DC-10 rule...
Looking at the Level Based Basic DC chart for a level 15 challenge, the DC for a generic level appropriate challenge would be 34. So with my proposed rule, the Aid DC would be 24. With assurance in the appropriate skill, and lets even assume you're legendary in the skill...with Assurance you would get a result of 18 (10+8), which would result in a failure to Aid on level tasks.So, I think broadly applying the DC for Aid to be DC (of the original task) - 10 would stop critical successes from being common.
Except Assurance is 10+Proficiency bonus, Which would be 10+(2*prof Rank)+level. If you are going up against said adult red dragon even when 3 levels below it you have guaranteed 27(Highest at that point is master). Assurance auto-succeeds against every DC-10 that dragon has except Athletics and Fortitude. on a PL+3 creature no less. You will start to auto-crit against a same level target once you find their low DC.
Even when not using assurance, you can add bonuses so the crit or near crit on assurance is now a crit on a rolled 6 or 5.
Even a wizard should have an average attack roll of a 31 at that level.
10+level(11)+Rune(2)+dex(4)+expert(4). Right?
You probably have a status bonus of +1 or 2. And maybe a -1 or -2 penalty on the...
Hmmm, you're right. I always forget that technically your proficiency bonus includes your level, it's not just the +2 to +8 from trained to legendary.
In light of that, I would probably change my idea to original DC-5.
To me, the thing is if they can hit the original DC, they should probably just be doing it themselves, and if they can critically succeed to Aid they deserve to give a bigger bonus. But they also shouldn't be critically succeeding all the time, unless it's a trivial task compared to their level.
To achieve that kind of result, I think tweaking the DC is the key, but finding the right tweak my take some effort to land on the right spot.
If I take a very simple example: A Wizard who happens to carry a bow and uses their third action to Aid their Greatsword Barbarian player first attack. On paper, it's not the most impressive use of Aid one can think of, it's still as good as the same Wizard with maxed out Dexterity and a fully Runed Bow (including Elemental Runes) making an attack but with no character investment but level.
If this Wizard starts giving a +3, or even better a +4, because the GM is nice it becomes the de facto third action as it now competes with a martial second attack.No wizard gets +3 or +4 by using a bow attack Aid, because they don't reach Master or Legendary in bow.
Yeah, that's why there's a point and a carriage return between the example of the bow and the +3/+4. Because a permissive GM can allow the Wizard to Aid with a Master/Legendary skill, that's completely RAW. And that would be disruptive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's funny is that there's nearly no RAW to Aid. The only thing that is RAW is the need to use a reaction and the bonus. Besides that, the GM can do whatever they want.
What's funny is that there's nearly no RAW to Aid. The only thing that is RAW is the need to use a reaction and the bonus. Besides that, the GM can do whatever they want.
And it needs to be this way because of the million ways players can try to do the action and the million factors that a GM might consider for allowing it or not, and the million ways a GM might need to decide the way the player is making the attempt is more or less difficult than a 15.
And even that statement will probably find dissent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both our rulings are legitimate. So we should just agree to disagree.
Less legitimate and more finagly in your case I'd say.
Both our rulings are legitimate. So we should just agree to disagree.Less legitimate and more finagly in your case I'd say.
And you are entitled to that stance.
Its fundamental to anything that is GM adjudicated that people are going to disagree on what things should be.
Both our rulings are legitimate. So we should just agree to disagree.Less legitimate and more finagly in your case I'd say.
Disagreeing with you doesn't make my ruling less valid. You're no authority here ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it's been almost a week now since you started the thread. Have you been able to talk to your GM about it?
I've been waiting for the next session to bring it up since the GM is hard to reach between sessions and generally doesn't like to be bothered by such things unless we're in session.
Here's hoping he doesn't interpret it as an ambush.
How do people think like 90% of TTRPGs work, with rules just as if not more loose than aid? That other games are some lawless wasteland where players exploit the rules for their own gain, the the GMs are powerless to stop them?
Yes.
Pathfinder 2e is the light in the dark.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The logic here is that it does not need to be a weapon attack roll to aid. So the wizard will never have reason to use that bow when they instead can improve the barbarians attack roll 40% of the time with a skill they are legendary in.
And there we come back to the problem that Aid has no real rules behind it. The GM is told to set the DC and determine if the PC can aid in the suggested manner. The rest of the what,where and how is also decided by GM with very little input on what actually should be taken into account with exception of repeated usage.
The only things not left undefined is that it costs your reaction and the resulting bonus. Even the required prep is just an undefined number of actions.
Its not houserules if the action itself tells the GM to go with what they feel like.
Sorry, I've truncated the quoted section cause it was getting out of hand.
Regarding casters providing a +3/4 on a critical Aid success...
The thing with that though is finding a skill the GM will allow to Aid an ally's attack roll.
Maybe I'm not creative enough, but in general only an attack roll is going to help your ally make an attack roll. I'm not going to say never to other things, but using your attack roll to Aid an attack is the only thing that's going to be guaranteed. Maybe athletics if you're in melee range.
The skills that casters tend to be good at are not ones I can imagine Aiding an attack roll, but in a special circumstance....maybe. So in my mind, the Wizard is unlikely to have skills legendary/masters skills that will help to aid an attack.
All of which is say, this whole idea of casters critically aiding an attack roll to the tune of +3/4 consistently just seems unrealistic to me.
The GM controls which skills are valid to use for Aid. The GM controls the DC.
If you don't like the results you're getting, examine those two things and ask yourself if you're being too permissive.
I've been waiting for the next session to bring it up since the GM is hard to reach between sessions and generally doesn't like to be bothered by such things unless we're in session.So it's been almost a week now since you started the thread. Have you been able to talk to your GM about it?
Well good luck. I'm 90% sure this isn't about DCs and it's about your description. Hopefully either they give you guidance on what sort of description will count, or you can throw some ideas at them and see which ones they would agree to count.
The GM controls which skills are valid to use for Aid. The GM controls the DC.
If you don't like the results you're getting, examine those two things and ask yourself if you're being too permissive.
Yes exactly. I don't see any reason to add mechanics, change the rules, interpret it to be like some other bit of rules etc. to 'keep it in check'. Maybe some tables don't like the whole judgment call aspect and would prefer the GM create additional rules that dictate exact skills, bonuses, penalties to rolls etc. If that's their preference, I guess making up more structure makes sense for them. We're old fogies though, GM judgment calls and even intentionally breaking the rules for some cool roleplaying reason is just part of what we see as the ttrpg experience. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. :)
You know though, the disagreement I have had was that there is no addeded mechanics or adding of rules.
Its kind of simple in that one GM might say its not any harder to use aid after striking and another GM saying you know what striking over and over is harder so aid when using it in a way they think should have the attack trait also is harder. ( and reaction rules are not violated, the pc bonus is not lessened, its the DC thats increased as the GM has decided 15 is not appropriate, which is within the rules to do)Both GMs are following the rules they just dont agree on aid being harder after a strike or two.
Those two adjudications make Aid applicability very different, but neither GM has any grounds to tell the other they are not following the rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know though, the disagreement I have had was that there is no addeded mechanics or adding of rules.
Removing or ignoring rules also makes the ruling "not following the rules".
So when you remove the second half of the clause here:
the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks
Then that is still a houserule.
If the only reason that you can give a player when they ask, "why is the Aid DC not 15?" is "Because I don't like how often you crit and I think a +3 or +4 bonus is too much for an action and a reaction", then that is a houserule.
If the only reason that you can give a player when they ask, "why is MAP being applied?" is "Because Aid is similar to Ready and MAP applies to Ready", then that is a houserule.
The GM can adjust the Aid DC to something other than 15... for particularly hard or easy tasks.
Ignoring the second part of that rule is a houserule. The GM has a responsibility to be able to answer the player's questions when they ask why their usage of Aid is particularly hard.
Also,
The bonus of the pc is not being lowered by MAP so the rule for reactions is being observed.
The difference in that scenario is the DC would not be 15 since the focus of the monks round was on attacking the opponent not on aiding an ally. Now the monk would have still succeeded on the roll with that 26 but it would not be a crit success so they only provide a +1 to their ally. If the monk wanted to give the big bonuses that a crit would yield their best bet would have been to use an action to aid with the attack trait first before using other actions that increase MAP.
To be clear if a GM gives the attack trait to aid and the action is taken first that would raise MAP for subsequent attack actions and that is within the rules. And there is no point in giving aid the attack trait at all if the GM is not increasing the DC of the aid check because players will always always use it with a last action so applying the attack trait has no consequence.
I still want to see how you justify adding the Attack trait to the Preparation action. No attack roll is being made.
Devise a Strategem does not have the attack trait.
Hunt Prey does not have the attack trait.
Exploit Vulnerability does not have the attack trait.
Why does 'I am contemplating ways of assisting an ally by potentially swinging a weapon or otherwise attacking a shared enemy' have the attack trait?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At high level, Aid has the potential to really disrupt the game strategy by becoming the single best third action with no competition. All of that at absolutely no character cost.
So I highly disagree when people say it's not disruptive. All it takes is a permissive GM and a bunch of optimizers to turn it into a real high level issue.
Now the fact that it can only be a problem at high level really hides the issue.
This is a balance argument to justify a houserule. As such, it is fine. Justifying your houserules will certainly help to get the rest of your players on board with playing the game that way.
But this is not a RAW argument.
It is not even an argument of ambiguity that would have the potential to invoke the Ambiguous Rules rule. The rules are unambiguous. MAP does not apply to checks made when it is not your turn.
It's bonkers to me that you said both of these things.
You argue that having a restrictive default is actually better because a GM can always just throw it out on a whim if the player asks by way of a cool-sounding idea (literal calvinball). And at the same time you ignore that if the rule says "you aid with the same skill" that is going to have players not bother to even ask if they can aid using something else so your "a lot of DMs of it would've let this through" claim is highly inaccurate because they'd not even have the opportunity since their players just aren't even bringing up the idea as they already know the rules say no - since asking for rules you know to be changed to suit you is something many players realize is obnoxious behavior.
There is no inconsistency in thinking that having an established baseline is good for a table. Rules are something of a pre-negotiated social contract. The 1E rules give you a shared baseline you can expand from. The current 2E aid rules kick the can down the road entirely and give the players no baseline whatsoever. There's no way for a player to get their foot in the door if their GM is doing stuff like Ravingdork's GM, here, because almost anything the GM does could be considered playing by the rules as written. Even if the DM cares about the rules, in 2E the players ultimately have no leverage in rules negotiations if the GM wants to make asinine decisions wrt Aid; they at least would've had a bit of leverage in 1E in that situation.
It's also worth noting that the 2E default isn't more restrictive or less restrictive than 1E; it's as restrictive or free as your DM allows, which could in fact result in it being narrower than 1E (and it pragmatically seems to have ended up that way for Ravingdork, here). The point of my thievery aiding thievery example isn't that I think it shouldn't be allowed; I would allow it. It is instead to point out that individual GMs will make bizarre rulings and you're just kind of stuck with it.
Actually, aren't you the person I was arguing about metagaming with a while back, the one that said their DMs often wantonly blocked completely reasonable actions because they were """metagaming?""" Surely you should understand the idea that the rules vesting free rein in the DM and giving the players nothing to claw back agency with is bad. Everything the rules explicitly allow you is a tool the DM cannot take away from you if they care about the rules. Is your experience simply that the DM won't care, will operate on DM fiat regardless, and thus won't be open to negotiation?
===
You're also making some strange assumptions that 1E and 2E players are the same, that I run my 1E and 2E tables the same, and a host of other things. The games are apples and oranges to me. What's good for one game doesn't have to be good for the other, and in fact often isn't.
A houseruled, loose conception of aid that goes past the RAW isn't anything weird in 1E. That's a game I already run and play in a looser manner, see more narratively focused players in, and houserule in a substantial amount. That's also how most of my DMs have run 1E. A looser conception of aid won't look or feel out of place at the tables I've been a part of.
In contrast, a loose conception of Aid in 2E is frustrating. This is a game I'd prefer to avoid houseruling in as DM unless I see a genuine design flaw, simply because of the way it's made. Further, the community around the game usually likes the rules because they are more well-defined than other games, and my DMs typically run the game close to RAW. Yet—as this thread has demonstrated— whether Aid is usable in a situation or even worth using at all is entirely up to the DM. That is a striking departure from most of 2E design and most of what 2E players online like about the system.
===
And that lands me at a really important thing you also seem to be not thinking of; Since the rule is that the player describes their attempt, Aid often does actually use the same skill to aid because the player is thinking of how to help and lands on the most basic idea of just joining in. Like how the most obvious way to help pry a door open is to get your hands on the same crowbar and help apply leverage. You don't actually have to come up with a way to explain that you're actually using your knowledge of how doors are built and reinforced to direct the athletics-using character with your crafting training - but you also don't have the rules having already said no to you being able to try that before you ask and hoping that even though the rule is clear your GM won't get annoyed you're trying to bend the rules to suit you.
Nope, GM says what your skill check is. It doesn't matter what you think is logical or makes sense; it is GM fiat. The GM, by RAW, can just as easily say they think you should make a Thievery check instead because you're helping bust down a door and that's burglary or something. They might even do that to help you, because they know you have a way better Thievery and they want to throw you a bone. And is that really unreasonable? There's some logic to it, at least, and it does help you. But at the end of the day, the GM decides.
The game doesn't even imply negotiation over the check type occurs, for what it's worth; it just says you describe how you prepare, and the DM tells you if it'll work and then what check to use when you take your reaction. I just think it'd suck if it didn't occur, and I hate tables of the sort where players aren't allowed to know how their actions will parse until after they've taken them. But as this is written, it is all up to the DM, and even the part in GM core implies that how you describe preparing to aid should be wholly narrative (I'll hold the lock while you pick it) instead of having any mechanical content (I'd like to use thievery to help aid; I'd like to use thievery to move the lock around a bit while you pick it to help you hit the tumblers or something; etc.)
The thing is that you're sort of expecting the player to always think a certain way and the DM to always pick up on it, which is... not what I'd expect. There are all kinds at a table, from the person who will never want to negotiate this at all to the person who will try to Aid everything with Intimidate if given half an inch. And different DMs think quite differently about situations. And that's even before we just get into garden variety communication errors.
===
I think in general, you are very focused on what is possibly allowed if your GM agrees, and I am focused on what is guaranteed if your GM is swayed by the rules. What is possibly allowed is truly quite wide! But what is guaranteed is basically nothing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM can adjust the Aid DC to something other than 15... for particularly hard or easy tasks.
Bolding it doesn't make you look good.
All of us are following RAW, which is not hard considering how loose the rules are.
It also made me realize how every table envisions Aid differently, leading to very different ways of adjudicating it. At least, I know I can expect very different rulings around the tables I play with, there was a lesson to get out of this conversation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, GM says what your skill check is. It doesn't matter what you think is logical or makes sense; it is GM fiat. The GM, by RAW, can just as easily say they think you should make a Thievery check instead because you're helping bust down a door and that's burglary or something. They might even do that to help you, because they know you have a way better Thievery and they want to throw you a bone.
I don't think that is quite accurate to RAW, though it is close.
The GM doesn't propose what skills are being used for Aid.
The player chooses the narrative and the skill as a proposal. Then the GM either accepts the proposal, or rejects it and asks for refinement of the idea.
So your earlier example of "I want to help my ally pick the lock by using my own lockpicks and my Thievery skill" could very well be rejected because the GM decides that having two characters both trying to stick their lockpicks into the lock are just going to get in each other's way rather than help. Or it could be accepted because the GM decides that it will work fine.
What shouldn't happen is the player saying, "I want to help my ally pick the lock..." and the GM interrupts with, "OK. I'll say that is an Intimidation check. Go ahead and see if you can scare the lock into opening."
But while the GM may not be directly proposing or enforcing "you must use this skill to Aid with", the GM could potentially indirectly enforce a particular skill by refusing to allow any other option...
But ultimately that is what you were proposing initially by saying that the GM should only allow Aid using the same skill as the check being made. There is still only one choice that the player must use to Aid with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM can adjust the Aid DC to something other than 15... for particularly hard or easy tasks.Bolding it doesn't make you look good.
That sounds like a variation of "You are just being rude".
That isn't logic. That is just an attempt to shame someone else into leaving an argument.
You know though, the disagreement I have had was that there is no addeded mechanics or adding of rules.Removing or ignoring rules also makes the ruling "not following the rules".
So when you remove the second half of the clause here:
the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasksThen that is still a houserule.
If the only reason that you can give a player when they ask, "why is the Aid DC not 15?" is "Because I don't like how often you crit and I think a +3 or +4 bonus is too much for an action and a reaction", then that is a houserule.
If the only reason that you can give a player when they ask, "why is MAP being applied?" is "Because Aid is similar to Ready and MAP applies to Ready", then that is a houserule.
The GM can adjust the Aid DC to something other than 15... for particularly hard or easy tasks.
Ignoring the second part of that rule is a houserule. The GM has a responsibility to be able to answer the player's questions when they ask why their usage of Aid is particularly hard.
Not a single rule has been ignored. "The" rule is the GM must decide if 15 is appropriate or if the attempt is particularly harder or easier.
That is the rule. as long as the GM is making a decision either way the GM is following that rule.Not agreeing with a GM on what is particularly hard is not the same as the GM not following the rule.
This is why I made that quip about GMs needing to come consult you before making that judgment. A GM is asked to make a judgment by rules as written. Because your argument boils down to you disagreeing with the judgment. That is not a rules argument at all its a judgment argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds like a variation of "You are just being rude".
It is. Bolding, as if we were not able to read or understand the rules, is rude. Sorry to state it.
That isn't logic. That is just an attempt to shame someone else into leaving an argument.
I am the one leaving the argument. I don't think there's anything else to add. Which is certainly the reason why you end up bolding text, because rational arguments have run dry. This is just a matter of opinion, of how we envision Aid from the rules as written. Differently. I don't think I can convince you because I understand your arguments, I'm not even sure you think you can convince me.
"Agree to disagree" is the conclusion, even if I think, from the multiplicity of rulings we have seen in this discussion, that there are really a lot of different ways to run Aid. So it's more, in my opinion, an "expect table variation" than just a disagreement between 2 sides.
Also,
The bonus of the pc is not being lowered by MAP so the rule for reactions is being observed.
The difference in that scenario is the DC would not be 15 since the focus of the monks round was on attacking the opponent not on aiding an ally. Now the monk would have still succeeded on the roll with that 26 but it would not be a crit success so they only provide a +1 to their ally. If the monk wanted to give the big bonuses that a crit would yield their best bet would have been to use an action to aid with the attack trait first before using other actions that increase MAP.
To be clear if a GM gives the attack trait to aid and the action is taken first that would raise MAP for subsequent attack actions and that is within the rules. And there is no point in giving aid the attack trait at all if the GM is not increasing the DC of the aid check because players will always always use it with a last action so applying the attack trait has no consequence.I still want to see how you justify adding the Attack trait to the Preparation action. No attack roll is being made.
Devise a Strategem does not have the attack trait.
Hunt Prey does not have the attack trait.
Exploit Vulnerability does not have the attack trait.Why does 'I am contemplating ways of assisting an ally by potentially swinging a weapon or otherwise attacking a shared enemy' have the attack trait?
Where in the aid rules says the action used to prepare to aid is contemplation?
One example provided is helping hold a lockpick steady for someone picking the lock. In that example its not a matter of contemplation its an action being taken. The pc as preparation is taking action to hold the lock steady, and that is the preparation part not the reaction.The preparation for an ally's attack could be taking swings at the enemy yourself, the reaction is when you make your well timed attack giving your ally a better chance at getting through. Your still swinging away during the preparation. A player saying they wanted to do this I would absolutely allow to increase an ally's to hit with aid.
snip
I would boil it down to this: I am far more concerned about the worst case scenario by RAW than the "normal" scenario by RAW, you are correct. I also consider a GM that runs roughshod over the rules for no reason a lost cause, and not worth worrying about in a conversation about following rules. Discussing the impact of rules on a GM that doesn't care about rules is like discussing whether a 2-year-old will use the salad fork for the correct course at a dinner party; it's outside of the reasonable scope of the conversation and not a case we should actually care about.
You are correct, it's not an implication. It is, however, a statement.
The phrasing of the rule is describing a negotiation, so it doesn't actually matter that it doesn't literally use the word "negotiation" in doing so. Especially if being read by a GM that is planning on engaging with their players in a collaborative and beneficial way.
Unfortunately, by RAW, it isn't a negotiation at all. This is exactly what it says:
You must explain to the GM exactly how you're trying to help, and they determine whether you can Aid your ally.
When you use your Aid reaction, attempt a skill check or attack roll of a type decided by the GM.
This says three things:
1) You tell the DM how you're trying to help.
2) The DM tells you whether or not that Aid attempt will work.
3) When you use the reaction, the DM has you attempt a check of a type they choose.
Notably, this never says you can suggest or recommend what skill you Aid with, and it does explicitly say what skill is used is the DM's choice. It doesn't even say the DM should tell you what skill you'll use to roll the check before you choose to spend an action preparing! EDIT: So, for example, a very possible way for this to go by RAW is:
Player: I'd like to help Jay the Goblin Force Open the door. I'll help him pull with the crowbar.
DM: That's a reasonable way to aid, sure. I'll allow it.
Player uses their Aid reaction
DM: Alright, roll me a thievery check to aid.
I think most people would be baffled by this. But by RAW, nothing untoward occurred.
And let's look at the section about adjudicating aid in GM Core again:
It’s up to you whether someone’s preparation is enough to let them Aid an ally. The preparation should be specific to the task at hand. Helping someone hold a lockpick steady might be enough preparation to Aid an attempt to Pick a Lock, but just saying you’re going to “encourage” them likely wouldn’t. Second, the character who’s attempting to Aid needs to be in a proper position to help and able to convey any necessary information. Helping a character Climb a wall is pretty tough if the character a PC wishes to Aid is nowhere near them. Similarly, a character usually needs to be next to their ally or a foe to Aid the ally in attacking the foe. You’ll also need to determine how long the preparation takes. Typically, a single action is sufficient to help with a task that’s completed in a single round, but to help someone perform a long-term task, like research, the character has to help until the task is finished.
You will note that not once is a specific skill check given in these examples. What is given are examples of preparation ("helping someone hold a lockpick," "saying you're going to 'encourage' them"). And those examples do not include skills, nor do they suggest them.
There is no negotiation actually suggested, or even implied elsewhere in the rules, about what check is used. The only negotiation implied is about whether or not your preparation is sufficient to Aid, and it's only really a negotiation in the sense that if the DM says no you can suggest something else.
This is quite bad.
And not seeing the comparison with Ready which is the only other ability in the whole game I can think of that also has both an action and a reaction cost is crazy to me.
Not seeing and acknowledging the clear contrasts with Ready is crazy to me.
Not acknowledging that Aid is its own mechanic with its own rules that are different and distinct from the separate Ready mechanic with its rules is crazy to me.
You apparently only accept the evidence that supports your bias, and invent further evidence conflating Ready with Aid to support your bias, while blithely ignoring every evidence to the contrary. That's crazy, man!
That sounds like a variation of "You are just being rude".It is. Bolding, as if we were not able to read or understand the rules, is rude. Sorry to state it.
That isn't logic. That is just an attempt to shame someone else into leaving an argument.I am the one leaving the argument. I don't think there's anything else to add. Which is certainly the reason why you end up bolding text, because rational arguments have run dry. This is just a matter of opinion, of how we envision Aid from the rules as written. Differently. I don't think I can convince you because I understand your arguments, I'm not even sure you think you can convince me.
"Agree to disagree" is the conclusion, even if I think, from the multiplicity of rulings we have seen in this discussion, that there are really a lot of different ways to run Aid. So it's more, in my opinion, an "expect table variation" than just a disagreement between 2 sides.
That sounds like a variation of "You are just being rude".It is. Bolding, as if we were not able to read or understand the rules, is rude. Sorry to state it.
That isn't logic. That is just an attempt to shame someone else into leaving an argument.I am the one leaving the argument. I don't think there's anything else to add. Which is certainly the reason why you end up bolding text, because rational arguments have run dry. This is just a matter of opinion, of how we envision Aid from the rules as written. Differently. I don't think I can convince you because I understand your arguments, I'm not even sure you think you can convince me.
"Agree to disagree" is the conclusion, even if I think, from the multiplicity of rulings we have seen in this discussion, that there are really a lot of different ways to run Aid. So it's more, in my opinion, an "expect table variation" than just a disagreement between 2 sides.
I agree with Bidi that the only thing that really looks RAW in Aid is the action cost.
If we extend the RAW definition we will enter in the "The Gm Has The Final Say" rule that turns everything that GM does as RAW. :P
But what we usually call as RAW are the rules (or rules part) that are pretty clear and don't calls for the GM adjudication like Aid does with the DC value.
That said being RAW or not. I don't think that use MAP in the Aid reaction looks a good way to deal with it once it is a misinterpretation that what MAP is IMO. MAP is a game mechanism to prevent the players to stick doing attacks as possible using its actions available. It isn't a a mechanism to reflect a verosimilitude difficulty simulation that due you have made an attack too fast your next attack have to be more difficult otherwise attacks + save spells should be punished in the same way. It's just a mechanism to try to force players to do other actions instead of just attack. Having this in mind I think that Aid idea is to exactly this, do other thing that is not just Strike otherwise why do you will try to Aid at all? Just Strike again if you will take MAP anyway.
I also agree with Finoan that the described intention of Aid DC to be changed is to represent the difficulty. A GM just change it to a DC based in level or to apply a MAP doesn't looks to meet this intention instead it looks as a try to rebalance it because the GM thinks that it's too low for higher levels but not to really represent an increased difficulty of the task (yet we can defend the idea that DC is a Difficult Class so impose a DC by level or use the challenge DC or even the target AC as DC because AC is a type of DC is also a valid Difficult adjustment but not always the best for every situation) to that Aid specially if we consider the action and the opportunity cost during an encounter (in exploration these cost simply doesn't exists and Aid can simply becomes too powerful if you don't adjust the DC). But this something that is to GM adjudicate.
So the only things that I disagree really is if a GM simply keeps the players in blank in how hard and possibly an Aid check will be. This will frustrate any Aid usage due the blindness of its real efficiency in that game.
I already told this but I also considered that Bidi way to add MAP as a strange way to deal. But it's his decision to how to deal with Aid in its games yet it's he trying to find a balanced way to deal with Aid I can understand why he is trying to do this and while he is keeping his players aware of this everything is perfectly fine even with this going far from RAW. :P
If people were saying the game balance is off if you run it that way or the intention of the aid action wasn't to do things that way or its just a bad adjudication of the rules I might agree with them on some of that.
Its just saying RAW its not allowed and therefore homeruling the words on the page simply disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... The GM is told to set the DC ...
Aid tells the GM, "The typical DC is 15, but [you] might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks" (emphasis added).
The GM is not told to set the DC. The GM is told that the DC is typically (meaning the baseline expectation is) 15 and instructed that they might want to adjust it based on the difficulty.
GM Core gives guidance on Adjusting Difficulty:
You might decide a DC should differ from the baseline, whether to account for PCs' areas of expertise or to represent the rarity of spells or items. A DC adjustment represents an essential difference in the difficulty of a task and applies to anyone attempting a specific check for it ...
...
... These adjustments aren't taking the place of characters' bonuses, modifiers, and penalties—they are due to the applicability of the skills being used.
.
If the GM always adjusts the DC because they feel like the typical DC is too permissive, then they are diverting from RAW into houserules.
... The GM is told to set the DC ...Aid tells the GM, "The typical DC is 15, but [you] might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks" (emphasis added).
The GM is not told to set the DC. The GM is told that the DC is typically (meaning the baseline expectation is) 15 and instructed that they might want to adjust it based on the difficulty.
GM Core gives guidance on Adjusting Difficulty:
You might decide a DC should differ from the baseline, whether to account for PCs' areas of expertise or to represent the rarity of spells or items. A DC adjustment represents an essential difference in the difficulty of a task and applies to anyone attempting a specific check for it ...
...
... These adjustments aren't taking the place of characters' bonuses, modifiers, and penalties—they are due to the applicability of the skills being used.
.
If the GM always adjusts the DC because they feel like the typical DC is too permissive, then they are diverting from RAW into houserules.
This argument was already made and discussed earlier in the thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not seeing and acknowledging the clear contrasts with Ready is crazy to me.
But I do. I acknowledge both their similarities and their contrast.
On the other hand, you are still not acknowledging the similarities between Aid and Ready, which is really crazy :)
Ho, more bolded text, great... When you start bolding text, you should wonder if you are still having a real conversation or are just considering the other one to be stupid.
I agree with Bidi that the only thing that really looks RAW in Aid is the action cost.
The reaction cost. The preparation can take any time, it only "usually" takes an action during your turn. Free action preparation is largely possible, even if no one thinks about it. The GM can also force you to use more than one action to prepare for an Aid.
There's also another thing that is not stated in Aid: The time separating the Preparation from the Aid. For example, if I decide to grab some dirt and throw it at the enemy's face to distract them from an ally, it looks like a valid way to Aid (GM as the final say, obviously, but I can see GMs allowing it). Preparation would be to grab the dirt and Reaction would be to throw it. But there's no need for the Preparation to happen on the same round I throw the dirt, I could even do it before the fight even starts as long as I don't do anything else with my hand.
I could even go further in this direction: There are Alchemical Items like Sneezing Powder, Dark Pepper Powder or Mustard Powder that can replace easily the aforemention dirt, pushing to use Crafting for the skill check to determine the effectiveness of the Aid. A Bestial Mutagenist can easily have 2 hands free for 2 Aid reactions with their best skill without the need for Preparation during the fight. Sick!
That's why I dislike the lack of directions of Aid used during combat. It's so loose players can come up with a bit of everything, leading to extremely different effectiveness and a lot of GM adjudication. Actions you can use in combat must be strictly defined, as players can otherwise find ways to abuse them.
Edit: Thinking more about it, I don't see how I could forbid the aforemention irritating powder trick. It fully follows the rules of Aid so the only thing I could do is to prevent an Alchemist from producing an irritating powder (or give it an abusively high gp cost) which seems silly as it's definitely something Alchemy should provide at an acceptable cost.
If I was running the game, I would be open to a player taking a minute to deal with it in the moment:
Player: I Aid. 19.
GM: You fail.
Player: Really? It's normally a flat DC of 15. Are you applying a penalty of some sort?